Study Links Monsanto’s Roundup to Autism, Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s

Just as Monsanto attempted to discredit scientist Gilles-Eric Seralini’s study on rats fed genetically engineered corn, the company called this peer-reviewed journal article “another bogus study” due to its “bad science.”

A new review of hundreds of scientific studies surrounding glyphosate—the major component of Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide—sheds light on its effects within the human body. The paper describes how all of these effects could work together, and with other variables, trigger health problems in humans, including debilitating diseases like gastrointestinal disorders, diabetes, heart disease, obesity, Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s disease.

Glyphosate impairs the cytochrome P450 (CYP) gene pathway, which creates enzymes that help to form and also break down molecules in cells. There are myriad important CYP enzymes, including aromatase (the enzyme that converts androgen into estrogen) and 21-Hydroxylase, which creates cortisol (stress hormone) and aldosterone (regulates blood pressure). One function of these CYP enzymes is also to detoxify xenobiotics, which are foreign chemicals like drugs, carcinogens or pesticides. Glyphosate inhibits these CYP enzymes, which has rippling effects throughout our body.

Because the CYP pathway is essential for normal functioning of various systems in our bodies, any small change in its expression can lead to disruptions. For example, humans exposed to glyphosate have decreased levels of the amino acid tryptophan, which is necessary for active signaling of the neurotransmitter serotonin. Suppressed serotonin levels have been associated with weight gain, depression and Alzheimer’s disease.

This paper does not claim to yield new scientific discoveries. Instead, it looks at older studies in a new light. Critics will say the links between glyphosate and health problems made in this paper are purely correlational, but this work is important because it brings all of the possible health effects of glyphosate together and discusses what could happen: something the U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Food and Drug Administration have failed to do.

Just as Monsanto attempted to discredit scientist Gilles-Eric Seralini’s study on rats fed genetically engineered corn, the company called this peer-reviewed journal article “another bogus study” due to its “bad science.” In a classic pot-calling-the-kettle-black scenario, what Monsanto doesn’t mention is that the majority of research showing glyphosate’s safety has been done by Monsanto itself, which could be called bad science as well due to its limited and biased nature.

The authors of the new review call for more independent research to validate their findings, stating that “glyphosate is likely to be pervasive in our food supply, and contrary to being essentially nontoxic, it may in fact be the most biologically disruptive chemical in our environment.” If the body of independent research on GE foods and the herbicides used with them shows one thing, it is that there are unanswered questions begging for unbiased research. And while these questions remain unanswered, Americans have the right to know how their food was produced.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Monsanto no longer holds the patent on it's herbicide formula containing glysophate. If this is the case, why is Monsanto being
singled out as the sole company manufacturing and marketing glysophate? If you
inspect the ingredients of most "weed killers", you will find glysophate as the
lead ingredient. If opponents of the use of glysophate are concerned about it's
possible effect on public health, shouldn't they be focused on this fact?

Monsanto created glyphosate (fyi, they falsified data to pass it) and yes, its patent expired in 2000. That does not take away from the harmful effects of this active ingredient in Roundup. You do know that Roundup is the #1 selling herbicide in the world? So, as with any industry, the industry leader is pursued. In this case, this "leader" created the toxin in question.

The anti-glyphosate campaign is off message. What's more important? public
health or vilifying a corporation? This movement would garner much wider public and political support if it focused on facts surrounding the use of glyphosate, not the producers.

The outrageous arrogance of stupidity that seem's to get worse with each passing year from those who wield our once honorable legal system into the sword of corporate elites care zero for anything but profit's should try and imagine how they would feel if we took a few hundred million of there dollars or stock and fed it to the paper shredder , But it's these front groups like Alec that need a stout reminder of just where they are located . Maybe a few hundred angry American's bitch slapping them around the parking lot will jar there memory's of just who these soft pink hand grossly out of shape chubby boys are and how this country was founded. We allow these "men" to co exist while they earn over the top salaries and we demand nothing from them but some human ethics . Well people it would appear they either have none or have lost the will to use them in modern society so I say maybe it's time we reminded them of just exactly who the hell they really are. We can put an end to all this crap fast if we decide to get tuff and do so in a manner they can respect like say a good old fashion curbing or public ass beating in front of there entire country club family of friends that way the message goes out far and wide .. Maybe it's just really time WE TOOK BACK OUR COUNTRY...But did it in full view of all of them not behind closed door's or in shady backrooms or in closed door sessions . Maybe WE ANNOUNCE IT LOUD AND CLEAR ...

Holy %?*#~€*!!! I have a stack of symptoms that correlate to these findings. I also live in the very rural country, where Round Up is sprayed. I'll be forwarding this to my doc in a city teaching hospital who is a genius.

From what I know about liver metabolism Id have thought one would be dead from messing with it.

Don't these bastards at Monsanto have children and grandchildren? What do they think the kids will buy with the money on a toxic planet with a dying ecosystem?

The French "study" that purported to show genetically modified corn caused horrendous tumors on rats was, indeed, phony science.

1. The rats used were bred specifically to develop the exact tumors they did for use in other experiments;
2. The experimenter never actually said the rats were fed GM corn, in fact, he refused to divulge, even when specifically questioned, what they had been fed;
3. He also refused to divulge HOW MUCH they had been fed.
4. He used only one control group of rats, a group of 9, that supposedly didn't develop tumors. The experimental group was 10 groups of 9. For the experiment to have any validity the control group should have been the same size as the test group;
5. The scientific magazine which published the study WITHDREW IT when the above information was divulged. They apologized profusly for ever publishing it;
6. The experimenter, it turns out, has a long history of publishing bogus studies;
7. Every scientific organization in Europe repudiated the study and the author of the article.

It's important to note that ANYTHING can be proven if you don't follow the rules of scientific experimentation, AND that only studies that follow all the rules, rigorously, mean anything.

One reason for publishing all the details of your experiment is so others can run the EXACT SAME experiment and see if they get the EXACT SAME results. Only after it has been proven that the results can be duplicated under the exact same conditions is an experiment considered valid.

Ask yourself why all the obvious flaws in this experiment?

Likewise, there are fatal flaws in this discussion of, not another experiment, but a supposed study of other papers which pulls out data and effects not mentioned in the other papers.

1. A new review... What review? What's the name of the review? Who did the study? Who published it?

2. The paper describes... What does it describe? Where is the proof of the statement that Glyphosate impairs the cytochrome? Are you telling me none of the papers studied made this conclusion but by studying the papers and not doing research themselves the phantom authors discovered new results? How, exactly, did they do that if they did no studies themselves?

3. Monsanto "attempted" to discredit Seralin's paper? Monsanto didn't have to do anything, the entire European scientific establishment, including the magazine that orginally published it, discredited it. As phony science.

This is simply an article written about a supposed study which supposedly reaches a conclusion that Genna Reed, the articles author, wishes to put forth. There is no more scientific validity to what Reed says as there is to Seralini's conclusions.

You have to ask yourself why can't the myriad legions of opponents of Monsanto and Roundup come up with even ONE actual, valid, objection?

Why are so many willing to accept all the garbage "science" without ever, once, saying, "Hey! Wait a minute. This isn't valid, give me something that's valid?

Allowing Monsanto to define which cases they wish to pursue in the courts is a losing cause.
What is needed is for a farmer to request court protection for his crops and for his crop seeds - that the GMO pollen is ruining his seed and Monsanto is responsible.

If Monsanto claims to "own" all seeds containing their "patented" DNA, they should be expected to control the pollen containing that DNA and not spread it throughout the biosphere - thereby claiming ownership to all seeds.

Another approach would be to sue the Patent Office for incorrectly issuing a patent on life itself.

It goes against the rules of good science and good reporting to write a story like this without referencing the article itself, it's authors and the periodical it was published in. Providing a link to the publication is good, but not mentioning or naming the details makes the story come off sounding more like junk science than the good science it really is.

Maybe one "saving grace" of this is that the number of "corporates" who golf will most likely be showing up among this privileged population... because of the hypersensitivity of golf course maintenance crews to maintaining that "perfect setting". ^..^

Several years ago, I wrote articles predicting these things. I stated that in cases in which I or others, encountering several pesticides/herbicides, including Roundup, while playing baseball had temporary symptoms that mimicked those of Autism, Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s"

We knew it, didn't we? All these diseases, many of them new or vastly increased, did not come out of thin air. They came out of air laced with industrial chemicals and byproducts, in our food, our water, and on our skin. 80,000 chemicals, largely untested, float through the American experience. Not so in other countries. Just here in America where the freedom to pollute in the pursuit of money is paramount.

When will we finally recognize this as a crime. ADHD, Alzheimer's, autism, Parkinson's, thyroid disorders--these diseases were largely unknown when I was a child, not to mention little girls entering puberty (starting menses) at 8 years old and sometimes younger.

If you are one of the people who is apparently not bothered by industrial pollution and products, good for you. If you are, however, chances are the quality of your life is severely compromised, every day, every night, years on end with no holidays.

HA! GREAT idea. I'd love to see the CEO of ANY major corporation from AT&T to Monsanto to Unilever get an enema, period. Occasionally flushing one's brains out is a good idea. However, as your comment specifically applies to using Monsanto's witch's brew, surely Mr. Hugh Grant would fall back on the old default defense, stating "Follow the label instructions carefully. Round-up is not labeled for use in administering enemas."

Kudos to you, Realitybites. You may have just stumbled upon the one viable way to restore some sense of shame, morality and ethics back into Corporate America.

Comment with your Facebook account

Comment with your Disqus account

Top Stories

A prominent Wisconsin democrat was asked if he was aware a candidate he endorsed was a corrupt republican with ties to Scott Walker. Instead of answering, he called the cops on the guy asking him the question, having him arrested and jailed.

Inmate Chase Bellefountaine posted a photo of himself to Facebook, which led to an investigation for a cell phone. However during the investigation, law enforcement received information that Bellefountaine was involved in something more serious than possession of a cell phone.

7 Compelling Reasons Why You Should Support NationofChange

1. You’re keeping independent journalism alive
The corporate owned media has proven that it can’t be trusted. In a media landscape wrought with spin and corruption, NationofChange stands in very scarce company.

2. You’re sticking it to the rich, powerful, and corrupt
When you have money in this country you can get away with damn near anything, and they do. NationofChange isn’t afraid to expose these criminals no matter how powerful they are.

3. Your donation is 100% tax-deductible
NationofChange is a 501(c)3 charity. People tend to assume that many other organizations are (most nonprofits are NOT) but it’s that 501(c)3 status is a bit more rare than you think.